WHY WE APPROACH THE DURBAN II 'ANTI-RACISM'
CONFERENCE WITH TREPIDATION
Rabbi Abraham Cooper
Huffington Post, April 7, 2009

In today's global, Universalist age, what could be more welcome than a World Conference Against Racism (WCAR), held in Durban , South Africa , ground zero of the global movement that toppled Apartheid? This is certainly how many of us felt when we  first heard during the last year of the Clinton Administration that the UN was planning such a conference in 2001 to tackle the scourges, not only of racism and racial  discrimination, but of "xenophobia and related intolerance." Of special importance was the fact that this was to be the first such international gathering in Africa and that post-Apartheid South Africa was selected as the venue.
For Jews in particular, the crusade against racism resonated for reasons that go back beyond the civil rights marches of the 1960s when Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., and Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel marched hand-in-hand. In 1936, the term "racism" was coined to rally scientific and political opinion against Nazi doctrines of "Aryan superiority" over Jews and other alleged "untermenschen." In 1948, a popularizer of the term, Julian Huxley (a Jewish anthropologist), served as the first Director General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization  (UNESCO). That was the year when the struggle against "racism" so conceived helped inspire both the UN Declaration of Human Rights and Israel 's declaration of statehood
with the UN's blessings.
Still, from the outset of the "Durban Process" there were serious concerns that
the historic gathering in August/Sept 2001 could be hijacked, not to counter racism, but fuel it. The reason: The 1975 UN General Assembly resolution--decoupling the  history of Jewish people from the struggle against intolerance--by equating "Zionism and racism." While this odious resolution was repealed in 1991, its gravitational pull dominated and eventually discredited many of the Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) charged with safeguarding human rights on the world stage. Indeed, the 2001 Durban Conference proved to be a case of history repeating the 1975 Zionism-equals-racism outrage. In light of this, it should not be hard to understand why we fear that  ugliness could stain "Durban II"--starting on April 20th in Geneva --this time not by symbolic gestures of NGOs, but by formal UN Resolutions singling out only Israel as the planet's worst serial abuser of human rights.
In retrospect, 2001's Durban I was doomed long before the first speeches were delivered. During the two-year lead-up to the Conference, my Wiesenthal Center colleague, Paris-based Dr. Shimon Samuels, a founder and board member of ENAR (the European Network Against Racism), which groups over 600 anti-racist NGOs across the European Union, and who chaired of the Jewish Caucus at the WCAR, attended preparatory meetings in Strasbourg, Warsaw, Santiago, and Geneva. Across Europe , he witnessed "an incremental process
of semantic theft" as left-wing movements marked "Kristallnacht 1938" in November, 2000, while ignoring over 100 anti-Semitic attacks including synagogues worldwide in the same month.
In February 2001, despite assurances by then UN Human Rights Chief Mary Robinson, I and Dr. Samuels were excluded, in violation of our Center's UN consultative status, from the Tehran Prepcom which also barred the Baha'is. It was there that the "Zionism is Racism" formula was re-introduced while the phenomenon of "anti-Semitism" was deleted from the governmental draft declaration. According to the Tehran Times,  Iran was "the best venue for holding this preparatory meeting, as the Iranians  can rightly boast that they have an ancient culture and civilization free from all kinds of bias and discrimination." Conveniently omitted were contemporary examples of Iranian "tolerance" as the show trials of Iranian Jews as "Israeli spies" and  the persecution of Iranian Baha'is for practicing their faith.
Instead of removing the rabid terminology introduced in Tehran , the Geneva Prepcom 3 meeting refined such Tehran strategies as:
The expropriation of the term "Holocaust," reflected in the new doctrine of "the
 three holocausts" "the twin holocausts" of the Atlantic slave trade and new world
slavery (the trans-Saharan and Indian Ocean slave trades into Arab and Muslim societies are omitted), and the "third holocaust" of the "Naqba" or the Israeli-perpetrated Palestinian "Catastrophe."
The assimilation of "anti-Semitism" into the new concepts of "Arabophobia" (hence the accusations of "Anti-Arabism" and "Zionist practices against Semitism") and  Islamophobia (no mention of discrimination in Arab and Islamic societies against  non-Muslims).
The proposal to eliminate any mention of anti-Jewish practices, including Holocaust Denial on the Internet, because "antisemitism is not a manifestation of 'contemporary racism'."
At Geneva , prestigious NGOs such as Amnesty International, Save the Children, and Franciscans International expressed alarm at this inflammatory language, but would not speak out in solidarity with its Jewish targets. Indeed, Human Rights Watch  refused even to protest "calls for violence" in the NGO Draft, which it defended  as "being justified if against apartheid or on behalf of the Intifada."
Then came Durban . First, there was "the youth forum" during tens of thousands of demonstrators chanted: "We Will Liberate Al-Quds" and "Free Palestine." The Durban police had difficulty controlling clashes between rival street demonstrators. Jewish demonstrators waved Israeli and South African flags, sung Hebrew songs, and offered flowers to shouting protesters who did not reciprocate with bouquets. On Monday, a "Hitler pamphlet" with a picture of the Fuhrer and a caption reading, "If I had won the war there would be no . . . Palestinian blood lost," surfaced at the Durban Exhibition Center .
I will never forget my first experience at Durban . While talking with a veteran
 Egyptian journalist from Al Ahram, who accompanied President Sadat on his historic trip to Jerusalem , he saw a younger reporter from Jordan passing by and called  him over to introduce us. In mid-handshake, the young man suddenly withdrew his  hand and asked: "Are you a Jew? I never would have shaken your hand if you are a  Jew," as he wiped his hand off on his jacket.
Durban I's singular focus on Israel , not only damaged the Jewish State, it emboldened Mideast extremists, empowered anti-Semites, and stained the image of self-appointed caretakers of 'Civil Society'. Perhaps worse of all, by focusing almost exclusively on Israel/Palestine it robbed precious access to the world stage of human rights activists from five Continents desperate to put their case before the nations of the world.
Which brings us to Geneva 's 2009 global confab against racism and all forms of  intolerance. Once again, it is Israel --and, this time advocates of Freedom of Speech--in the docket. The Durban II Preparatory Committee, led by Libya invited to join into its inner sanctum Iran which, since Durban I, has continued to stone women for adultery, hang adolescent criminals, persecute gays, finance international terrorism, developed nuclear centrifuges in defiance of the UN, and threatened "to wipe Israel off the map." At Iran 's insistence, participation by a Jewish NGO has been banned--just like in 2001.
The planning agency, the UN Human Rights Council, in an unintended homage to George Orwell, has treated some religions as more equal than others. When British historian David Littman sought to discuss mistreatment of women under Islam, he was cut off by Egyptian and Pakistani delegates declaring any discussion of Sharia law "will not happen." On the other hand, Council's Special Rapporteur Doudo Diene gave a speech condemning Islamophobia but not mentioning discrimination against Christianity or Judaism. By defining religions rather than individuals as the carriers of human rights, Durban II may seek to overturn freedom of speech guarantees and make "anti-Islamic blasphemy" a crime under international law.
Some proposed language was moderated at the last minute after boycotts led by Canada and belatedly by the U.S. , and concerns expressed by the European Unions and others. Yet despite cosmetic changes, there is every reason to believe we are in for yet another hate fest. I will do my best to keep you abreast of developments at Durban II from Geneva , providing you with an activist's inside view on breaking developments.
Marx said: "History repeats itself--first as tragedy, then as farce." Let's hope
 that this farce will not generate new tragedies.

THE DURBAN SNOW JOB CONTINUES
Anne Bayefsky
EyeOnTheUN.org, April 16, 2009

The UN's idea of an anti-racism conference entered the final stretch yesterday with the planning committee deciding Iran ought to preside as a vice-chair, Libya will serve as the chair of the "Main Committee" running the conference and that Cuba  will be the "rapporteur." All three human rights paragons will assume their new  duties on the first day of "Durban II" set for Monday, April 20.
Although the flowers are blooming by Lake Geneva , these Durban II preparations  are best described as a massive snow job. The UN had set aside three days to hammer out a final document to be adopted formally at the conference itself. But Chairwoman Najat Al-Hajjaji of Libya adjourned the meeting half an hour after it began--despite the fact that half of the 142-paragraph draft manifesto has not yet been agreed  upon.
Al-Hajjaji is the front for the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). Her
not-so-hidden agenda is shared by the secretary general of Durban II, UN High Commissioner Navi Pillay. For Pillay, a native of Durban , South Africa , the Durban Declaration's status is of biblical proportions. Sitting at the podium side-by-side, Al-Hajjaji and Pillay's strategy became painfully obvious to the hundreds of assembled diplomats and representatives of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) who thought they had  come to talk about combating racism.
Their tactic had two elements. First, to run out the clock. By adjourning rapidly
and probably repeatedly throughout most of the next two days, the conference will inevitably start on Monday with the European Union at the table and the threat of a pull-out by democratic countries gone.
UN diplomats are all well aware that the EU will agree to just about anything when faced with the spectacle of a "failed" UN conference. Because EU members don't have the numbers to prevail at the UN if a vote is called, they therefore feign consensus instead of appearing to be "losers" to the folks back home. They are also fond of the UN as an excellent means to outweigh the United States by 27-1. The EU states also wilt at the prospect of being labeled as former colonialist racists, even by racists from the developing world.
The second OIC-UN move is to keep all disagreements behind closed doors for as long as possible. This way, the damage done to combating racism for real via their backroom negotiations will be in the form of indecipherably ambiguous UN-ese by the time  it is a done deal.
As Al-Hajjaji was clocking out 30 minutes after showing up for work, she asked the delegates to pick up a new draft of the "Durban II Outcome Document" on their way out the door. Seeing it, there is little wonder she wanted no opportunity for public discussion.
Here is what can be found in the latest draft of the UN's new "anti-racism" bible:
* Condemnation of "foreign occupation"--aka Israel-bashing. Foreign occupation is said to be "closely associated with racism, racial discrimination . . . and [to]
 contribute to the persistence of racist attitudes and practices . . ." In other
 words, the racist label applied to the Jewish state is back.
* Defamation of religions under a new guise. The document professes "deep concern" about "the negative stereotyping of religions."
* More of the Islamic assault on free speech. The draft "reaffirms that all dissemination of ideas based on . . . incitement to racial discrimination . . . shall be declared offenses punishable by law . . ."
* More Iranian-sponsored references to "cultural diversity"--diplomatic cover for
turning the other way while regimes murder homosexuals, encouraging the judicially-sanctioned amputation of hands and feet, and stoning of women for alleged adultery.
* Renewed emphasis on the "transatlantic slave trade" and total rejection of a proposed mention of the trans-Saharan slave trade perpetrated by Arabs and other Africans.
* Additional emphasis on the adoption of "complementary standards" on racism and xenophobia--this is an Islamic idea designed to subvert the principles for combating racism in existing treaties.
And lest anyone be under the impression that Durban II will go away come April 25, the draft demands that the Durban Declaration be implemented "in the whole UN system" forever more.
Silencing public commentary on the abomination was not the only thing the OIC-UN nexus accomplished in the space of 30 minutes. Also quickly gaveled without comment was approval of 81 NGOs to participate in Durban II. Included among these illustrious "human rights" partners:
* The Independent Jewish Voices, a network composed largely of anti-Zionist extremists preoccupied with driving a wedge between Jews and Israel .
* The Palestine Return Center , which peddles a tale of the "ethnic cleansing of
 Palestine that began more than sixty years ago" as part of its opposition to the
creation of Israel .
* The Gadhafi International Charity and Development Foundation, whose president  is a son of Col. Moammar Gadhafi and still insists that the Libyans convicted for the bombing of PanAm Flight 103 were innocent.
The Obama administration has delayed a decision whether to come or go to the final hour. The opening sentence of this new draft still "reaffirms" the 2001 Durban Declaration, which the U.S. rejected the first time around for its overt discrimination against and demonization of Israel . Obama claimed his administration wouldn't go to Durban II if this declaration was "reaffirmed in toto." Combined with the new allegations of racism against Israel , he and UN Ambassador Susan Rice have nowhere left to  hide.
Other countries that might join Canada and Israel in staying out of the conference include Australia , Italy and the Netherlands . Australia has had a finger in the wind for months. Italy is not participating at the moment and doesn't have any reasons to go back with this latest travesty. And Dutch efforts to improve the statement  have been treated with disdain. Even so, the Germans and French are pressing fellow EU members hard to show solidarity with the EU--the merits of Durban II and all  those "red-lines" they use to espouse be damned.
So on April 20, the 120th anniversary of Hitler's birth, a representative of the
 Islamist government of Iran will be elected as a vice-chairman of a global anti-racism conference. On the afternoon of opening day, a Holocaust denier who wants to "wipe Israel from the map"--Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad--will address a UN conference against racism and representatives of the European Union will sit and listen to  an avowed anti-Semite give a lecture about combating intolerance. In the end, most UN states will almost certainly adopt a document incompatible with the UN's foundational principles of the equality of all men and women and of nations large and small.
A good day for UN-based anti-Semites. A bad day for those who care about human rights.

(Anne Bayefsky, a law professor at Touro College and senior fellow
at the Hudson Institute, edits EYEontheUN.org.)

ISRAEL: DURBAN II TEXT IS GETTING WORSE
Tovah Lazaroff and Hilary Leila Krieger
Jerusalem Post, April 16, 2009

Israelsaid that the newest version of the draft text for next week's anti-racism
 conference released Wednesday in Geneva was worse than the previous one when it  came to singling out Israel .
"The new text is not an improvement. If anything it is worse than the previous text
because it includes a reference to foreign occupation which in the diplomatic world is code for Israel ," Israel 's Ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva Roni  Leshno Yaar told The Jerusalem Post by phone.
In addition, he said, in its opening paragraph the new text continued to reaffirm
the conclusions of the 2001 United Nations World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance that met in Durban , South Africa . That text singled out Israel .
"We are worse off than we were yesterday," Leshno Yaar added....
The US has held firm to its intention to boycott the 2009 meeting as well, but said that it would consider changing its position on Durban II if significant changes were made to the text. In a statement it released Monday, it said, "The United  States believes any viable text must... not reaffirm in toto the flawed 2001 Durban Declaration and Program of action." In addition to dropping the affirmation of the "flawed" 2001 program, the US is also concerned by "restrictions on freedom of expression" stemming from the document's language on inciting religious hatred.
In spite of the US stance, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay welcomed the new 17-page text, which reaffirms Durban I and is a revision of a "rolling text" published by the chair of the conference's working group, Russian diplomat Yuri Boychenko, on March 17....
US representatives could not be immediately reached for comment on the new text, but on Tuesday the Obama administration reiterated its intention to boycott the  conference. Senior Obama administration officials spoke by phone with leaders of the Jewish community Tuesday to reassure them that the document revisions were not sufficient to induce the US to attend Durban II. In a statement released close to midnight on Monday, the administration explained that "elements of the current draft text that continue to pose significant concerns" remain....
State Department acting spokesman Robert Wood's statement Monday concluded, "We  hope that these remaining concerns will be addressed, so that the United States  can reengage the conference process with the hope of arriving at a conference document that we can support." In anticipation of the State Department statement, and amid lingering concerns that the US would participate in the Geneva meeting, several  Jewish groups and members of Congress on Monday called on the Obama administration to refuse to attend....
Already in advance of Durban II, a two-day anti-Israel NGO conference is scheduled to meet on April 18 and 19th, called "The Israel Review Conference." An anti-Israel rally is also scheduled in Geneva for April 18.

Please see our Picks of the Week [http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1102554327779&s=6696&e=001tnsVsXgA_Xja4PomvcGqghqhGdlQvrAGeWZo0wju-DH3V9iPuiCgLC5RsR4g8g5UWLCxOt-5jRuMxXtvrlFdAQiQcTLbCRRd4ZnuDqG0oEqbCw1Ek94rr1LjEffqWzjVqG3ve49Oue4Ku7Adi5UkUv1Ze76l2mcm2nJ55s-zmgo=]
for Gerald Steinberg's thoughts on the delegitimization of Durban II, and Hillel
 Neuer's analysis of the U.S. 's return to the UN Human Rights Council.